Why Today’s Conservatives Are Useless Debaters

They don't have the grit nor guts to make coherent arguments.

In a recent commentary in The American Conservative, editorial assistant Maria Biery made it clear who won the annual CATO (libertarian) vs. Heritage (conservative) interns debate earlier this month:

Conservatives should take notes from the libertarians at this debate. Their speeches were filled with hard, fact-based evidence, and they drove their core points home repeatedly. The conservatives were taking a roundabout approach to get to the central thesis of their arguments, and the fleeting references to philosophers that most young people have not read did not help. If conservatives in the future figure out how to better channel their audience they will be much more persuasive.

I’ve no doubt that Maria, a summer intern and senior at the University of Pennsylvania, has offered an accurate description of her experience. Although I wasn’t at the event, I’ve attended so many like them featuring representatives of different groups from the establishment Right that I can easily imagine what Maria was seeing. The conservatives were clearly less prepared for a high-stakes debate. Approved “conservatives,” or approved interns, whom Washington-foundations and publications send to such affairs, are usually not the best minds produced by the American Right. The “conservative movement,”as I’ve documented repeatedly, has been driving out heretics, many of whom have been rhetorically gifted deviationists, since the 1980s and in some cases since the 1950s.

“Conservative” enterprises or “Conservative Inc.,” now peddle in narrowly-focused policy-wonks and (oh, lest I forget) cultural conservatives. Their audiences are usually people in their late sixties or early seventies, judging by the average age of Fox-news viewers; and these true believers are not impressed by mental acuity as much as they are by thematic predictability in their favorite news commentator or conservative celebrity. A younger generation of conservative celebrities repeating the same soporific talking points hardly bodes well for Conservatism, Inc.

Cultural conservatives of my acquaintance have rarely made it up the greasy ladder of media fame but usually labor to sound profound. These are the intellectuals who appeal to “permanent things” and “value conservatism” without taking a controversial stand on something that could come back to bite them. They are neither fish nor fowl in the Weberian sense. It was the great German sociologist Max Weber who sharply distinguished in two related tracts between “Politics as a Calling” and “Science as a Calling.” According to Weber, educated people have to decide whether they are making statements as scholars, or whether they’re doing so as political advocates. One cannot do both, according to Weber, without losing one’s intellectual integrity and sacrificing one’s scholarly reputation. Although Weber lived in a time when academics were not as frenetically politicized as they are now, his distinction still has instructional value.

Of course cultural conservatives never have to address the Weberian choice, since they are usually neither noteworthy scholars nor daring political advocates. They make careers in a region that intersects quite superficially the two areas of activity discussed by Weber. For example, if one were to ask the people I have in mind in a public debate whether gay marriage is a good idea (to pick an extremely loaded example!), they might pull out a passage vaguely in support of that position from an ancient classic. These reluctant debaters might also quote from the King James Bible and indicate there is biblical disapproval for the practice under discussion but then also suggest that they’re happy to live in an age that is so tolerant of gay lifestyles. A cultural conservative might then segue into an anecdote about Russell Kirk or Flannery O’Connor meeting someone with an unconventional lifestyle and expressing friendly feelings toward him. Cultural conservatives engage in such bizarre practices because they are terrified of conflict. If you want someone on the Right to debate with social leftists, then please don’t call on such discussants.

Those on the Right who can debate effectively, however, are often on the outs with the conservative movement. Try John Derbyshire or Steve Sailer if you need someone to debate CATO about the cultural effects of immigration or about any other forbidden topic. What about asking Tom Woods to debate any representative of Conservatism, Inc. about the vast discretionary power that has been given to judges and public administrators because of civil rights legislation? And let’s ask Phil Giraldi or Scott McConnell to take on someone who insists that Israel is America’s most indispensable ally. Good debaters on the Right are not hard to find. But the “Washington policy community” may not want to push forward such controversialists.

A serious debater avails himself of all evidence at his disposal. If evidence can be found that a gay lifestyles correlates with certain pathologies, then an able and honest debater won’t hold back in pointing this out. If it’s clear that the enforcement of gay rights has extended government control over speech and social interaction, then the debater will bring this up.

On another subject: What Aristotle or some other long-dead thinker said about a particular subject (if he did offer an opinion about it) may be corroborative but hardly proves one’s case about contemporary social issues. Not that I’m disparaging Aristotle, whom I revere as a great philosopher. But invoking him or some other ancient worthy won’t clinch an argument for Maria and others of her generation, who don’t automatically defer to great names out of the past. They’re persuaded far more often by facts than name-dropping.

Another practice among inept conservative debaters who don’t do well outside of Republican nursing homes is belaboring the observation that Democrats back then in the distant past were slave-owners, eugenicists or admirers of Benito Mussolini. Anyone but a total cultural illiterate or a GOP fanatic would recognize the fact that American national parties have changed over time, and that the present Democratic Party bears no significant resemblance to the party of Jefferson and Jackson. It’s one thing to counter the charge made by black Democrats that Republicans opposed the civil rights movement by showing that GOP Congressmen voted for civil rights laws in even larger number than Democrats. It’s another, less defensible thing to drag out J.C. Calhoun, or a caricature of this Southern statesman, and ascribe his views on slavery to the modern Democratic Party.

Perhaps conservative movement publicists should stop these old tired games and start giving their side an edge they can work with, with people who can mount a coherent argument, and know how to win. Until then they can’t expect to best anyone, even interns, in any debates, anytime soon.

Paul Gottfried is Raffensperger Professor of Humanities Emeritus at Elizabethtown College, where he taught for twenty-five years. He is a Guggenheim recipient and a Yale PhD. He writes for many websites and scholarly journals and is the author of thirteen books, most recently Fascism: Career of a Concept and Revisions and Dissents. His books have been translated into multiple languages and seem to enjoy special success in Eastern Europe.

MORE FROM THIS AUTHOR

Hide 37 comments

37 Responses to Why Today’s Conservatives Are Useless Debaters

Lose debates on social issues because it is plain to see that their opinions arise from or are solidified by aversion and disgust reflexes rather than facts and reason. They stand a much better chance in the polemical arena like talk radio where appeals to sentiment are more the norm.

Oh for goodness sake!! Eazy Peazy explanation! The VAST majority claiming to be conservative are no such thing! They are merely a more boring group of libertarians. At know in the history of the known universe has conservatism so thoroughly embraced the stupid so tragically visible in the American “conservative” world.

I am not being snarky here, but wouldn’t it be helpful if the writer actually presented a nice, fact filled example of the sort of position he wants conservatives to defend? Maybe do a series of articles at TAC on various issues.

“What these partisans don’t mention is that a quintessentially Republican family, the Bushes, were longtime generous supporters of the same organization.”

However this writer puts forth the highly questionable suggestion that because the Bush family held a position diverging from traditional Republican conservatism, that the Bush’s remain the center of the party while those traditionalists became the fringe. Nah.

A corollary to the author’s point is the inevitable tendency of a conservative commentator to weaken his/her argument with an opening apology or qualifying statement, such as “I don’t really support President Trump, but I think his current approach to Syria is more realistic and effective.” Or “I did experiment with marijuana myself to a small degree when I was young, but I think the current trend towards legalization is going too far.” Or even to start a sentence with the phrase “in my opinion, …”

Debaters are trained in high school to never say that. Just SAY YOUR OPINION and let its strength be evident. You can always qualify things LATER, presumably when your opponent has also been made to qualify something he or she has said.

You seem to be talking around a point I have long tried to emphasize to anyone who would listen.

The typical “conservative” pundit does not discuss issues they do not agree with (implying a structured, logical argument) but things they simply do not like (implying the complex reality of modern existence freaks them out). To state it gently and in a more oblique manner, they are reactionary apologists who desire two things:

-maintaining a vague romantic Judeo-Christian social and ethical ideal.

-an economic environment where you are allowed to earn and retain as much profit as possible with impunity.

These may in fact be desirable conditions, they are, however, difficult to defend with conventional forensic techniques.

Tucker Carlson, a high quality conservative debater who doesn’t stoop to the embarrassing cowardly willful stupidity rightly denounced by Gottfried, has impressive ratings.

The base is healthy.

The problem is systemic moral cowardice among the “conservative” elite – owners of media outlets, managers of foundations, writers etc.

Insults such as “Georgetown cocktails party invitations” and “c_ckservative” sting because they lay bare a raw throbbing truth – they hope to deceive themselves into believing moral cowardice, the most disgusting of all vices, is a virtue.

The national debate will be dominated by the cultural Marxist globalist establishment on the one hand, and the small band of heroes published at Unz.com and similar outlets on the other. The “conservative” establishment will rightfully be ignored because they quite literally have nothing meaningful to say.

So-called “conservatives” are having their moment in the sun during the Trump administration, with a majority in both Houses, and the public is realizing that these “conservatives” have nothing new to say, and cannot get anything constructive done. So, I predict that the next elected President will be a “progressive”, and that the GOP will languish in the weeds again.

As a longtime, self-professed “conservative”, I have discovered that I dislike the “cultural” conservatism: anti-gay, anti-abortion, anti-feminism, pro-corporate mentality of our “conservatives”. So, I have quit calling myself a conservative. Furthermore, I Trump represents the best the GOP can muster, I don’t want to be in the GOP anymore.

The sad truth is that you can’t buy nearly as many votes with smaller government as you can with bigger government. Conservatives will necessarily remain on the rhetorical defensive until they can come up with a political agenda which gratifies the voters self-interest to the same extent that welfare-state leftism does.

One factor could be years of exposure to the cruder forms of right wing media. Ive heard several local level talking head wannabes who are like Limbaugh caricatures convinced that snark and attacking straw men passes for political discussion.

In the last 10 years conservatives have narrowed their arguments down to exactly two points.

1. ZERO TAX.

2. BENGHAZI.

Zero tax is at least a thing, though it’s not the cure for any of our problems.

Benghazi isn’t even a thing. I never heard anyone specify whether we need more Benghazi or less Benghazi or stronger Benghazi or weaker Benghazi. They just kept repeating the magic word with no explanation of what it was supposed to do.

As I read this, I can’t help but note that a great deal of the vigour from conservativism is coming from the alt-right, that great beast that every mainline conservative was quick to denounce (lest they lose their cushy jobs). Here it should be noted that I don’t buy the idea that alt-right = Nazi. Nobody is defending Nazis, so save the breathless condemnations for later.

This is a particular strain of conservatism that is growing because increasing numbers of people hate losing, hate being cast as the bad guys and scapegoats (even as conservatives have controlled basically nothing), are frustrated at waiting for libertarian promises of “market solutions” to solve the obvious cultural rot around them, and are sick of establishment GOPers rationalizing their inactivity and cowardice by claiming that not rocking the boat is the highest conservative virtue.

Now, I don’t subscribe to the alt-right worldview 100% (probably much less), and I definitely part company with the more extreme elements. But there is no denying that they have, at the very least, something to say and say it with boldness. This is the void that Conservatism Inc. has left and it is being filled quickly.

If we are going to castigate the alt-right, we should also acknowledge that they have scored the biggest policy success in a generation: pushing towards sanity on immigration policy, both legal and illegal. I sure as heck know that no other factions in the party were pushing that. That wasn’t Rubio or Paul or even Cruz’s baby.

Cultural conservatism rests on the notion that (3), (4), and (5) are the most important moral indices. Such a morality depends on cultural homogeneity, or at least a kind of pluralism pluralism where one group’s values (white Christians) are privileged over those of other groups.

As our culture moves toward a more truly pluralistic culture, the social balance is bound to tip in favor of (1) and (2). In that world, libertarianism is bound to prevail over cultural conservatism.

Of course, I’m not convinced we’re as pluralistic as we believe that we are. The meritocracy of cultural elites indeed embraces a kind of pluralism, and does so quite effectively. But our culture is not nearly so pluralistic once one leaves the elite bubble.

There are some issues on the Right that there is no point in debating because they are just right. I think the Right needs to practice not casting pearls before swine more. The days of real rhetoric are over.

Well, the article is misnamed. Because as the article indicates there are plenty of conservatives, and I use the term loosely, who are skilled debaters. So it’s not that they conservatives don’t know how, it’s that the Republican party or whoever constitutes the gatekeeper role doesn’t utilize them.

The problem I see for conservatives, especially christian conservative is that they lean oo heavily on arguments which don’t press the practical value of the conservative position.

There re very sound reasons for conservative orthodoxy that exist which do not require one to rest on the morality, including christian morality. And those positions do not require denying of one’s core or subsequent belief system.

I would say the first step is never permit the opposition to define what a conservative believes. It is entirely possible to defend traditional marriage as an something our society should promote and defend as opposed to same sex relational conduct without leaning on scripture or even mentioning it.

The same holds true for immigration policy, economic policy, and slew of issues.

The piece starts off with the author admitting he didn’t see what he’s about to comment on, and then shows that he’s not even familiar with what the event is trying to be.

For one, these aren’t conservative “celebrities,” they’re just interns. They didn’t style themselves as the savants of the right, they were just selected (or perhaps volunteered) to debate the CATO kids.

It’s true that the conservatives were outmaneuvered rhetorically and had difficulty articulating their contentions. The libertarians clearly won the debate.

But the libertarian vision of society is brutally simple, while the conservative one is quite sophisticated and complex. A libertarian can grasp onto the essential principles of his ideology in five minutes and then brutally apply them to every policy area over the rest of his life. The conservative embarks on a lifelong process of reflection that often involves a lack of clarity (which the libertarian never suffers from).

I saw the fleeting reference to philosophers as an indication that the conservative debaters were trying to articulate something that they were still trying to grasp onto. We should expect that from students (remember, they are undergraduates) their age.

I’m a bit surprised by The American Conservatives continued contention that you can generalize from this debate. There may be real problems with conservative argumentation or rhetoric, but I don’t see this debate as symbolic or symptomatic of them.

To the list of logical errors and other incompetent debating tactics, can we add defending some bad behavior by a current conservative political figure by pointing out that Obama or Clinton or some other Democratic politician did/said the same thing? That’s legitimate in some contexts (mainly where your opponent says that holding some view is deeply immoral), but not in many others (e.g., defending Trump’s decision to stick around in Afghanistan by saying Obama stayed in Afghanistan too).

“The conservatives were clearly less prepared for a high-stakes debate. Approved “conservatives,” or approved interns, whom Washington-foundations and publications send to such affairs, are usually not the best minds produced by the American Right.”

Interesting point. I have been very frustrated watching many aspects of the public debate over the past ten years particularly since we seem like light-weights who haven’t read broadly enough (and who in many cases don’t see the value in reading broadly at all) and can therefore barely argue their way out of a paper sack.

What may go hand in hand with that, however, is the strong anti -intellectual streak on the right as well as disdain for certain areas of study that they label as useless. Now maybe if something is out of your area of expertise, you have an excuse, but when you can’t even find the ballpark let alone play ball because you don’t know even the most basic points in a discussion, you know you’ve lost and need to get down to work doing the class reading.

In my view with the collapse of both the Democratic and GOP evidenced in the last election, Americans dragged through two years of a primary noted neither side of these so called career politicians brought up voluntarily touchy issues. The media, especially CNN was absolutely out of sorts Hillary lost. Conservatives struggle to debate the left as the left markets The Social Democratic Welfare State model, a virtuous model, they cannot make work. Obama was very effective marketing the model, Hillary was informed not to rock the boat as in say little and avoid nonsense from a wing nut Real Estate Mogul who said it like it is.So debate didn’t happen. Hillary was sent packing as was Jeb. Trump is President and Bernie Sanders is popular. Intellects, and Academics simply cannot come to terms with where we are.

I think you raise some very good points. But I also think that you miss the target.

they lean oo heavily on arguments which don’t press the practical value of the conservative position.
That’s because arguing from a position of practical value leads to (Gasp! Oh the horror!) compromise. Which, thanks to people like Newt Gingrich, Karl Rove, and Mitch McConnell is no longer permitted to be considered as an option. Reagan was able to accomplish what he did for your side precisely because of the fact that he and Tip O’Neill would famously meet over a couple of beers to hammer out compromises.

never permit the opposition to define what a conservative believes. It is entirely possible to defend traditional marriage as an something our society should promote and defend as opposed to same sex relational conduct without leaning on scripture or even mentioning it.
But it’s not the opposition that is defining you that way. It is the religious Right (and it’s panderers in the GOP) who insist on making the argument about morality. The liberal side of the argument is perfectly happy talking about it in terms of CIVIL rights. Employment, property, legal benefits – these are the subjects of liberal arguments. It is your side that comes back with “But it’s immoral!”

I question the degree to which conservatives are truly motivated by practical value. After all, if denying the benefits of civil marriage laws to same-sex couples is such a practical thing to do, then why were conservatives so short on arguments setting forth the practical value of the practice. And why does “defending marriage” necessarily require denying certain committed couples the right to enjoy its benefits?

Your comment explains exactly why cultural conservatism has failed, and why it necessarily must fail in a pluralistic society. Cultural conservatism requires me to believe that same-sex marriage is harmful merely because the bishop says so, even though I can’t observe any harm that necessarily befell society from the fact that Neil Patrick Harris and David Burtka got married.

“On another subject: What Aristotle or some other long-dead thinker said about a particular subject (if he did offer an opinion about it) may be corroborative but hardly proves one’s case about contemporary social issues.”

If one points out, with references, that contemporary thought is based on Sophistry or Solipsism (or Pyrrhonism for Cultural Constructivism) it is usually quite effective, rather than citing Aristotle immediately.

All of the thought involved is very ancient. Pointing out that to “contemporary” thinkers usually upsets and wrong-foots them.

“That’s because arguing from a position of practical value leads to (Gasp! Oh the horror!) compromise. . . .”

That depends on the issue. One need not compromise on same relational marriage. One need not compromise on killing children in the womb, the use of illegal or even legal inebriates. I don’t compromise on celibacy and again, I have very clear line as to what that means.

I have to tell you Ronald Reagan barely fits as a conservative (this puts me on the outs I know – but I stand by it). There are places to compromise, but that is very dependent on issues, defining terms, and consequence.
_______

“But it’s not the opposition that is defining you that way. It is the religious Right (and it’s panderers in the GOP) who insist on making the argument about morality. The liberal side of the argument is perfectly happy talking about it in terms of CIVIL rights. Employment, property, legal benefits – these are the subjects of liberal arguments. It is your side that comes back with “But it’s immoral”

Well, there you go.

a. You immediately assume my position for me. I think there is plenty of space to contend these issues in practical, grounded, realistic variables applicable to the general population. That do not require that I interject faith and practice. Now clearly, if the issue on the freedom to practice one faith, or the end game of where one derives their moral code from, it might, might mind you, cause a venture off into the existential — but that is not by conservative or religious belief required.

b. You make my point. No. A discussion of one’s faith is not by definition pandering. It’s establishing where one stands as to belief. But as a practical matter if I want to appeal to like minded voters or potential voters, I am going to address common ares, faith may be one of those — that is a very practical matter.

___

“The liberal side of the argument is perfectly happy talking about it in terms of CIVIL rights. Employment, property, legal benefits – these are the subjects of liberal arguments. It is your side that comes back with “But it’s immoral!”

All of these can be addressed in very practical terms. As fo your suggestion about my side and morality —

I find no fault with discussions of morality. But the idea that morality is alone how a conservative thinks is your attempt to define the ground and I have to reject it as incorrect. Th conservative position will have on occasion, moral implications, but many are founded on some very simple practical grounds.

I might take issue with the press for another reason; Since the 1960]s te primary arguments made by liberals and democrats have been premised on personal choice, benefit and morality. Same sex relation provide no unique added value to society and yet it’s immoral to deny said relationships marriage benefits. Ignoring categorical distinctions to make a moral argument as generic as pudding — vanilla.

__________________________

“then why were conservatives so short on arguments setting forth the practical value of the practice. And why does “defending marriage” necessarily require denying certain committed couples the right to enjoy its benefits?”

Perfect,

because one of the main purposes of any society, in fact, noted in the Constitution’s Preamble is to foster posterity. The idea of prolonging a society. Same sex relations are terminal. They add no unique value except to the individuals involved. The reason we provide benefits to heterosexuals is because they invest in extending society by way of children and all that they provide to the same. It is the premier mechanisms for any society’s survival. In act, the reason there is or at least used to be pressure on heterosexuals getting married and having offspring was to contribute to the whole. It is the single most important dynamic for any society. In that in makes sense that same sex relations would be discouraged. n all aspects, even in cases of adoption the heterosexual union — is a must. As a practical matter preferred.

Efficiency and efficacy demand that resources be invested to sustain and maintain that dynamic. — Same sex dynamics are personal and terminal.

And that would be true whether the Bishop said so or not. And I am not sure you have noticed, but the morality press here has been by advocates for same sex marriage. On the grounds that they would be happy. Happiness is not a practical matter, nor is it Constitutional. two men and two women fail to meet the categorical imperatives required for sustaining community and therefore, it lacks value. If a society wants to maximize value then it invests in dynamic that sustain, and add to its longevity — terminal relations do not.

Society has every right to define such public matters as marriage. And happiness as a challenge just fails any Constitutional test.

Note: one of the reasons for the faultlines is the direct change by Bishops who seems to think that two men or women being in relations is the same as a heterosexual dynamic. Plenty of Bishops agree with you hence the continuing collapse of mainstream congregations. They argue from a position of love, mercy and happiness.

” . . . even though I can’t observe any harm that necessarily befell society from the fact that Neil Patrick Harris and David Burtka got married.”

There’s the other twist that has been introduced in argument in the last ten ears. It is the advocates of change that have to prove benefit.

It is generally referred to as burden of proof. Since I don’t recognize them as married, save in some personal agreement between them, I can only note that they are two successful en living together, but provide nothing of value as a married couple that benefits society at large. Bestowing the befits of marriage, etc — is a waste.

EliteComminc:That depends on the issue. One need not compromise on same relational marriage. One need not compromise on killing children in the womb, the use of illegal or even legal inebriates. I don’t compromise on celibacy and again, I have very clear line as to what that means.

That’s because on these issues you are not arguing from a basis of “practical value”. You see no compromise possible because you are arguing from a position of ideology. I’m not saying it’s wrong to do that, I also have issues that I argue from an ideological perspective rather than from a purely practical perspective. But I recognize the difference.

You immediately assume my position for me.
No, I did not assume your position. I merely pointed out that your complaint about “the opposition” defining “what a conservative believes” was misplaced – because it is in fact others on your side of the debate who are positing that definition. If you feel you can argue these issues from a position of practicality, go ahead. And most liberals will be happy to engage your arguments on that same basis. But don’t be surprised to find that you are being drowned out by other voices from your own side.

“That’s because on these issues you are not arguing from a basis of “practical value”. You see no compromise possible because you are arguing from a position of ideology . . .”

All arguments stem from ideological perspectives. Whether one can address an issue via its practical application or existence does not mean ideology is absent. I this case, the positions above are not in any manner connected to faith and practice. An ideological front is not required to address the biological, human behavior and purpose and social mechanisms that establish what constitutes a community.

In my comment that you reference, I would be interested in what you think the ideological positions are.

Since, I have no idea where the distinctive difference lies, whether or not compromise can be found is unknown. You are willing to advance some possible compromise for me to consider. As I note, it depends on definition agreement, etc.

But understand, conservatives have been comprising with the liberal and democratic agenda or more than 40 years and every compromise was not enough.

Whether it was civil marriage or healthcare it’s never compromise enough.

———-

“And most liberals will be happy to engage your arguments on that same basis. But don’t be surprised to find that you are being drowned out by other voices from your own side.”

@ mad max
Agreed.
On another site I had begun calling myself a Conversative and no longer a Conservative. There, I was bound to be loquacious Here not so much for the reason that the comments are by far more in depth, informative, thoughtful and rarely if ever inflammatory. On that site the discussions devolved into vitriol and virtual fisticuffs. And I admittedly did the same with some relish. Here, differences are maintained with respect.